The  Somers 
Unit  System 
of  Realty 
V  aluation 


assessments  o  £ 
Land  and  Build¬ 
ings.  It  is  “com¬ 
mon  sense  sys- 
tematically  ar¬ 
ranged.”  In  seven 
American  cities  the 
Somers  System  has 
solved  the  difficulties  of 
the  assessors,  and  has  en¬ 
abled  them  to  distribute 
the  tax  burden  proportion^ 
ally  to  the  value  of  the 
property. 


Manufacturers’ 
Appraisal  Company 


CLEVELAND,  0. 


STATE  ST. 


ADAMS  ST. 

UN  IT  *  SOOO 


© 

♦  1,420.  848 


*162,762 


® 

*  84.000 


% 


•  2 ,756 ,303 


®3 


© 

4  1 , 45S,  948 


*  ® 

66  480 


4 

209.880 


© 


© 


3  88.  I  32 


'  4 


755 m  0  00 


©  ♦  130,  000 


i  &  135, SCO  © 


© 

$  474,  I  60 


14,  12.0 


*143.  6 SO  © 


© 


4 

469,4-35 


4  1 4-5 .  000  ©■ 


*  833, 62S 


UNIT*  6000 

-JACKSON  BOUL. 


Distribution  of  value  by  area  on  the  basis  of  the  unit 
values  indicated  on  the  four  sides  of  the  block — that  is  the 
effect  of  each  unit  value  upon  the  various  portions.  In  this 
way  is  first  ascertained  the  gross  land  value  of  the  block. 
(See  inside  back  cover  for  distribution  of  value  by  lots.) 


UNIT  #5000 

WABASH  AVE 


The  Somers  Unit  System  of  Realty  Valuation  is 
founded  upon  the  law  of  constant  effect  of  depth  on 
the  value  of  city  sites. 

The  Somers  Unit  System  of  Realty  Valuation 
consists  of  the  mathematical  formulae  and  mechan¬ 
ical  devices  for  using  that  law  so  that  real  and  rela¬ 
tive  values  of  actual  sites  may  be  ascertained. 


The  Somers  Unit  System  of 
Realty  Valuation 


Realty  assessments  are  everywhere  inequitable  and  with¬ 
out  proportion  as  between  one  parcel  and  another.  The  prin¬ 
cipal  cause  of  this  universal  condition  has  been  the  lack  of 
accurate  and  scientific  assessment  rules. 

The  Somers  Unit  System  of  Realty  Valuation,  when  in¬ 
stalled  by  assessors  with  the  expert  assistance  furnished  by 
the  Manufacturers’  Appraisal  Company,  will  correct  all  the 
evils  of  inequitable  land  and  building  assessment.  Its  cost  is 
reasonable,  and  no  city  can  afford  to  miss  the  opportunity  to 
correct  what  is  probably  the  weakest  point  of  efficiency  in  its 
administration  of  municipal  affairs. 

The  system  known  as  the  Somers  Unit  System  of  Realty 
'Valuation  was  invented  and  perfected  by  Mr.  W.  A.  Somers, 
after  many  years  of  study  and  consideration  of  land 
values  in  many  cities  of  this  country.  The  Somers  Unit  Sys¬ 
tem  makes  it  easy  to  exercise  judgment  of  values  of  land  in 
cities,  and  makes  certain  the  application  of  that  judgment  to 
the  varying  conditions  that  actually  exist. 

Under  this  system  the  judgment  of  the  value  of  land  is 
expressed  in  the  value  of  a  “unit  foot.” 

A  unit  foot  is  a  frontage  of  ground  one  foot  wide  and  100 
feet  deep,  located  in  the  central  section  of  a  block  at  a  distance 
from  any  street  corner  or  other  influence  that  might  affect  its 
value,  other  than  that  which  it  obtains  by  reason  of  access  to 
the  life  and  business  of  the  city  through  its  own  frontage. 

By  confining  the  expression  of  judgment  of  value  to  a  unit 
foot,  the  subsidiary  factors  of  value — size  and  shape — are  at 
first  eliminated.  The  mind  of  the  person  whose  duty  it  is  tg 


=  35489 


2 


THE  SOMERS  UNIT  SYSTEM 


m  & 

IA?As 


express  a  judgment  as  to  value  is  thus  called  upon  to  take  into 
consideration  the  one  factor  of  location. 

By  comparing  the  street  where  the  judgment  is  to  be 
expressed  with  others  of  known  values,  it  is  found  that  the 
judgment  is  more  easily,  and  therefore  more  accurately, 
formed ;  it  is  much  easier  for  a  person  to  compare  one  side  of 
a  street  with  the  other,  a  section  of  a  street  with  another  sec¬ 
tion,  one  street  with  another,  than  it  is  to  compare  a  lot  of 
one  size  and  shape  on  one  street  with  another  lot  of  another 
size  and  shape  on  another  street,  even  though  the  two  are  in 
the  same  neighborhood. 

When  the  value  of  a  unit  foot  has  been  fixed  on  fhe  four 
sides  of  a  city  block,  the  exercise  of  judgment  of  the  value  of 
land  in  that  city  block  is  complete.  The  Somers  System  pro¬ 
vides  a  method  of  applying  that  judgment  accurately  and  scien¬ 
tifically  to  all  the  land  in  that  block. 

The  factors  that  affect  the  value  of  a  given  piece  of  real 
estate  are  three  in  number — location,  that  is  the  kind  of  a  street 
that  the  lot  fronts  on, — size  and  shape.  In  addition,  some  lots 
have  additional  factors ;  they  may  be  at  or  near  corners,  where 
an  additional  value  exists  by  reason  of  that  fact,  or  they  may 
have  alley  frontage,  which  gives  an  added  value. 

MATHEMATICAL  RELATION  OF  VALUE. 

The  Somers  System  is  a  system  for  the  valuation  of  a  unit 
of  quantity,  and  a  system  of  applying  the  value,  as  expressed 
in  dollars,  of  that  quantity  to  every  other  piece  of ’land  affected 
by  the  same  influences  of  accessibility.  The  valuing  of  the 
unit  of  quantity  is  decided  upon  after  the  very  widest  “view 
of  the  premises.”  Not  only  do  the  assessors  “view  the 
premises”  during  the  assessing  period,  but  they  “view  the' 
premises”  as  citizens  of  their  city  for  many  years  before  they 
become  assessors: 

It  is  fair  to  presume  that  they  are  chosen  to  be  assessors 
because  of  their  very  wide  knowledge  of  values,  both  relative 
and  real,  of  the  items  of  land  and  buildings  that  go  to  make  up 
their  city;  this  knowledge  could  not  be  possessed  by  a  blind 
man  nor  by  one  who  entered  their  city  but  a  week  before ;  it 
can  only  be  possessed  by  those  who  have  “viewed  the 
premises”  for  many  years  and  known  the  relation  of  usefulness 
of  location  to  location,  street  to  street,  part  of  street  to  another 
part  of  the  same  street. 

Not  only  do  assessors  have  this  knowledge,  but  they  recog¬ 
nize  that  others  have  it.  They  can  invite,  under  the  Somers 
System  method,  the  opinion  of  all  citizens  who  have  also  been 
“viewing  the  premises,”  and  using  the  premises,  too. 


I2'nr'  >Vl 


OF  REALTY  VALUATION  3 

This  opinion  is  freely  given  and  the  assessors  may  use 
this  opinion  together  with  their  own  to  pass  judgment  upon 
the  relative  land  values  of  their  city. 

The  Somers  System  makes  all  this  wide  publicity  possible, 
but  it  does  not  do  any  valuing. 

It  must  be  apparent  that  if  the  value  of  a  given  piece  of 
ground  is  arrived  at — no  matter  what  method  therefor  is  em¬ 
ployed — another  piece  of  ground  just  like  it,  and  affected  by 
the  same  influences  of- accessibility,  must  be  worth  exactly  the 
same.  The  mathematical  relation  of  the  value  of  two  such 
pieces  of  property  is  easily  seen.  That  such  a  mathematical 
relation  exists  between  values  is  self-evident.  That  there  is  a 
mathematical  relation  between  the  values  of  two  sites,  of  dis¬ 
similar  size  or  shape,  but4  affected  by  the  same  influences  of 
accessibility,  must  be  as  apparent  and  self-evident  as  in  the 
first  illustration.  At  any  rate  all  students  pf  such  matters 
agree  that  this  is  so ;  every  assessing  department  in  the  United 
States  that  has  any  standing  whatsoever,  recognizes  this  fact, 
and  attempts  to  work  out  mathematically  what  that  relation  is. 

The  Somers  System  is  simply  the  highest  perfection  of  this 
attempt.  It  is  a  set  of  workable  tables  to  express  the  mathe¬ 
matical  relation  of  the  value  of  sites  affected  by  the  same 
influences  of  accessibility,  and  between  any  two  or  more  parts 
of  the  same  site. 

On  account  of  the  very  large  number  of  parcels  of  land  in 
a  city,  all  varying  in  size  and  shape,  the  mathematical  com¬ 
parison  must  be  made  with  the  value  of  a  unit  of  quantity. 

A  careful  investigation  of  the  Somers  System  discloses 
the  fact  that  it  is  exact,  and  flexible;  that  it  provides  for 
•publicity  in  advance  of  the  assessment,  and  that  by  it  is 
worked  out  into  final  values  the  community’s  opinion  of  the 
relative  values  of  sites. 

THE  USE  OF  UNITS. 

The  maps  used  show  only  the  streets  and  blocks,  without 
any  other  lines  or  marks.  In  the  streets  in  front  of  each  block 
is  written  the  value  of  a  foot  front  100  feet  deep,  uninfluenced 
by  any  corner  or  alley  effect.  The  following  diagram  will 
illustrate.  .  (See  Diagram  No.  1,  Page ’4.) 

Having  fixed  the  value  of  units  on  the  four  sides  of  a  block 
it  is  then  possible  to  figure  the  value  of  individual  lots.  Some 
are  longer  than  100  feet  and  some  are  shorter.  Hence,  it  is  ad¬ 
visable  to  use  some  rule.  The  following  curve  is  a  scale 
arrived  at  by  tabulating  the  opinions  of  many  owners  of  land 
(see  Diagram  No.  2,  Page  4)  : 


4 


THE  SOMERS  UNIT  SYSTEM 


U) 

H 


ST  sioo 


$300 


(fl 

H 

(Diagram  No.  1.) 


(/> 

H 


ro 

o 

o 


U1 

H 


ST. 


ST 


PERCENTAGE  OP  VALUE 


OF  REALTY  VALUATION 


o 


VARYING  DEPTHS  OF  LOTS. 

The  bottom  line. of  diagram  No.  2  represents  the  lot-depth. 
To  use  the  curve  for  a  lot  80  feet  deep,  find  the  80-foot  line, 
then  follow  up  the  perpendicular  line  to  the  curve  intersection ; 
this  point  carried  out  to  the  left  will  give  the  per  cent  of  the 
unit  which  produces  the  frontage  value  for  an  80-foot  depth. 
This  “curve  of  value”  when  reduced  to  figures  is  as  follows  for 
the  principal  depths : 


Feet  Deep. 

Per  Cent 
of  Unit. 

Feet  Deep. 

Per  Cent, 
of  Unit. 

0 . 

120 . 

...  107.05 

10 . 

.  .  .  .  25.00 

130. . . 

.  .  .  110.50 

20 . 

.  .  .  .  41.00 

140 . 

...  113^)0 

30 . 

.  .  .  .  54.00 

160 . 

.  .  .  116.80 

40 . 

....  64.00 

170 . 

.  .  .  118.40 

.  50 . 

....  72.50 

180 . 

.  .  .  119.80 

60 . 

.  .  .  .  79.50 

190 . 

...  121.00 

•  70 . 

....  85.60 

210 . 

.  .  .  122.95 

80 . 

....  90.90 

220 . 

.  .  .  123.80 

90 . 

....  95.60 

230 . 

.  .  .  124.60 

100 . 

.  .  .  .  100.00 

240 . 

.  .  .  125.35 

110 . 

....  104.00 

250 . 

.  .  .  126.50 

For  the  actual  work  of  figuring  lots  a  table  showing  the 
variations  for  each  foot  of  depth  to  that  of  700  feet  is  used. 

LOTS  AT  OR  NEAR  CORNERS. 

The  process  of  computing  the  values  of  lots  at  or  near 
corners  from  the  ascertained  values  of  units  of  contributing 
streets,  is,  by  reason  of  the  many  figures  employed,  rather 
complicated  to  describe.  The  enhancement  of  value  at  corners 
is  universally  recognized.  The  enhancement  is  commonly 
called  “corner  influence.”  Corner  influence  extends  either  way 
from  the  corner  itself,  growing  gradually  less  as  the  distance 
from  the  corner  increases,  until  it  disappears.  This  point  of 
disappearance  is  a  greater  or  less  distance  from  the  corner  and 
always  in  proportion  to  the  effect  in  combination  of  the  values 
of  the  units  of  the  two  contributing  streets  forming  the  corner. 

For  practical  purposes  an  imaginary  corner  lot  100  feet 
square  is  erected  at  the  corner  to  be  computed,  and  this  imag¬ 
inary  corner  lot  is  divided  into  100  squares,  10  sfeet  square 


6 


THE  SOMERS  UNIT  SYSTEM 


each,  and  each  numbered  in  regular  order  as  shown  in  this 
diagram  : 


O 

O 

UL- 


h- 

zz 

o 

oc 


DC 

U-J 

CL. 

o 

o 

ta 


I — 
UJ 
UJ 

cc 
I — 
CO 


10 

10 

30 

40 

50 

60 

70 

80 

qo 

100 

q 

iq 

2q 

3q 

4q 

sq 

68 

7q 

sq 

qq 

8 

18 

28 

38 

48 

58 

68 

78 

88 

88 

7 

17 

87 

37 

47 

57 

67 

77 

87 

87 

6 

16 

£6 

36 

46 

56 

66 

76 

86 

86 

5 

15 

£5 

35 

45 

55 

65 

75 

85 

85 

4 

14 

24 

34 

44 

54 

64 

74 

84 

R4 

3 

13 

23 

33 

43 

53 

63 

73 

83 

83 

2 

12 

22 

32 

42 

52 

62 

72 

82 

82 

1 

II 

21 

31 

41 

51 

61 

71 

81 

qi 

STREET  UNIT  5200  PER  FRONT  FOOT 

(Diagram  No.  3.) 


Mr.  Somers  has  devised  a  method  of  arriving  at  the  value 
of  each  of  these  squares  under  all  the  possible  variations  of 
relation  between  the  values  of  the  two  streets  forming  the 
corner.  To  illustrate,  with  the  values  given  in  Diagram  No. 
3  where  the  unit  values  are  $200  and  $100: 


Square  No.  1  is  worth  .  $586 

“  “  11  “  “  564 

“  “  21  “  “  552 

“  “  2  “  “  474 

“  “  3  “  “  425 

“  “  4  “  “  386 


and  so  on  for  each  of  the  squares ;  the  values  shade  away  from 
No.  1  in  every  direction  and  always  in  proportion  to  the  effect 
of  one  side  value  on  the  other.  By  diagramming  any  actual 
lot  upon  this  imaginary  corner  lot  and  adding  up  the  values 
of  all  the  squares  and  parts  of  squares  inside  the  actual  lot 
lines  the  value  of  the  actual  lot  is  ascertained.  If  there  is  a 
lot  30  feet  wide  at  the  corner  fronting*  on  the  best  street  and 


OF  REALTY  VALUATION 


i 


running  back  70  feet,  we  find  included  in  this  lot  are  squares 
from  1  to  7  inclusive,  .11  to  17  inclusive  and  from  21  to  27 
inclusive ;  the  combined  value  of  these  21  squares  is  the  value 
of  the  lot,  and  is  that  part  of  the  total  corner  influence  pro¬ 
duced  by  the  intersection  of  a  $100  street  and  a  $200  street 
that  belongs  to  the  owner  of  a  lot  3(f  x  70  feet  at  the  corner. 
The  remainder  of  the  influence,  whatever  it  may  be,  is  thus 
left  to  be  apportioned  to  other  owners  whose  properties  are 
somwhat  enhanced  because  they  are  near  the  corner. 

Where  a  lot  is  irregular  in  shape,  its  actual  lines  are  dia¬ 
grammed  and  the  result  ascertained  in  the  same  way  as  before 
described.  For  instance: 


O 

O 


o 

or 

li¬ 

ar 

1LJ 

o_ 

o 

o 

m 


tu 

LU 

or 

l — 
CO 


10 

20 

— 

30 

40 

50 

60 

70 

80 

qo 

100! 

* 

— 

q 

iq 

2q 

3°i 

4q 

59 

69 

7q 

89 

99! 

J 

8 

!8 

28 

38 

48 

58 

68 

— 

— 

78 

88 

qsi 

' 

7 

17 

27 

37 

47 

— 

57 

67 

77 

87 

q7i 

1 

26 

36 

46 

56 

66 

76 

86 

“  ■  ■  'i 

96: 

1 

5 

15 

25 

35 

45" 

— 

65 

95] 

1 

4 

14 

24 

34 

44 

54 

64 

7 

4 

84 

44! 

) 

3 

13 

23 

33 

43 

53 

63 

7 

3 

83 

43! 

2 

12 

22 

32 

42 

52 

62 

7 

2 

82 

92l 

1 

1 

11 

21 

31 

41 

51 

61 

7 

1 

81 

qi  i 

_ L 

STREET  UNIT  $200  PER  FRONT  FOOT 

(Diagram  No.  4.) 


To  the  total  value  of  all  the  whole  squares  within  the  actual 
lot  lines  must  be  added,  in  this  case ;  the  values  of  the  parts  of 
squares  Nos.  6,  16,  26,  35,  36,  45,  55,  65,  71,  72,  73,  74  and  75. 


8 


THE  SOMERS  UNIT  SYSTEM 


ADDING  PERCENTAGES  FOR  CORNER  VALUES 
INACCURATE. 

The  old  method  of  adding  a  given  percentage  to  the  corner 
lot  is  very  faulty,  and  results  in  valuations  that  do  not  fit  the 
facts.  There  is  no  known  percentage  that,  when  added,  will 
produce  the  proper  valuation  at  any  given  corner ;  and,  as  each 
corner  differs  in  some  way  from  every  other  corner,  there  is 
absolutely  no  given  percentage  that  will  fit  the  conditions  at 
all  corners.  For  example  : 


STREET  UNIT  SI00  PER  FRONT  FT. 


CORNER  LOT 


INSIDE  LOT 


100X100 


100X100 


(Diagram  No.  5.) 


An  inside  lot  100  feet  square  on  a  street  with  a  unit  value 
of  $100,  is  worth  $10,000.  If  this  is  made  to  come  at  a  cross 
street  with  a  unit  value  of  $20,  $40,  $60,  $80,  or  $100,  as  the 
case  may  be,  the  values  will  be  as  follows : 


Value  per  foot  Value  of  Value  of  Value  of  Percentage 

main  cross  corner  inside  of 

street.  street.  lot.  increase. 

$100  per  foot .  $20  $11,185  $10,000  12% 

100  “  “  40  11,780  10,000  18% 

100  “  “  60  12,560  10,000  25% 

100  “  “  80  13,693  10,000  37% 

100  “  “  100  15,100  10,000  51% 


An  inside  lot  50  x  100,  fronting  50  feet  on  a  street  with  a 
unit  value  of  $100  per  front  foot,  is  worth  $5,000.  A  corner 


OF  REALTY  VALUATION 


9 


lot  'formed  by  a  street  of  the  same  value  and  by  side  streets 
with  a  unit  value  of  $20,  $40,  $60,  $80  or  $100  per  front  foot, 
respectively,  will  be  valued  as  follows : 

STREET  UhlT  SI00  PER  FRONT  FT. 


1 

or 

o 

CORNER 

INSIDE 

+ 

LOT 

LOT 

ZI 

ID 

50X100 

50X100 

f — 

UJ 

LLJ 

or  I 

* 

ui 

(Diagram  No.  6.) 


*  Value  per  foot  Value  of  Value  of  Value  of  Percentage  , 

main  cross  corner  inside  of 

street.  street.  lot.  increase. 

$100  per  foot  . $20  $6,071  $5,000  21% 

100  “  “  40  6,589  5^000  31% 

100  “  “  60  7,278  5,000  45% 

100  “  “  80  8,268  5,000  65% 

100  “  .  100  9,500  5,000  90% 


An  inside  lot  50  x  100  feet  fronting  100  feet  on  a  street 
with  a  unit  value  of  $100  is  worth  72%  %  of  the  unit  or  $7,250. 
Change  this  to  a  corner  lot  where  the  cross  street  has  a  unit 
value  of  $20,  $40,  $60,  $80,  or  $100  and  the  values  are  as 
follows  (see  Diagram  No.  7,  Page  10)  : 


Value  per  foot  Value  of  Value  of  Value  of  Percentage 

main  cross  corner  inside  of 

street.  street.  lot.  increase. 

$100  per  foot  . $20  $7,805  $7,250  7% 

100  “  “  40  8,062  7,250  11% 

100  “  “  60  8,402  7,250  16% 

100  “  “  80  8,889  7,250  22% 

100  “  “  .100  8,500  7,250  31% 


The  variations  in  resulting  percentages  as  shown  by  these 
few  examples  illustrate  the  futility  of  the  percentage  plan  of 
valuing  corner  lots. 


10 


THE  SOMERS  UNIT  SYSTEM 


STREET  LIMIT  $100  PER  FROMT  F 


CORMERLOT  I  MSI  DE  LOT 
100X50  100X50 


(Diagram  No.  7.) 

EFFECT  OF  ALLEYS. 

The  effect  of  alleys  upon  abutting  properties  is  to  enhance 
their  value.  Under  the  Somers  System  the  land  of  an  alley 
is  first  valued  as  if  for  valuation  as  a  city  lot.  The  total  land 
value  of  the  alley  is  divided  by  the  number  of  feet  of  abutting 
lots  upon  every  part  of  the  alley.  This  resulting  “alley  unit”  is 
added  to  the  normal  land  value  of  every  foot  abutting  upon  the 
alley. 

THE  VARIOUS  TABLES  OF  THE  SOMERS  SYSTEM. 

The  Somers  Unit  System  is  made  up  of  corner  lot  tables, 
— a  different  table  for  each  combination  of  unit  values — as  well 
as  zone  tables  for  figuring  irregular  shaped  lots,  tables  to  com¬ 
pute  “overlap” — that  is  the  place  where  a  high  value  from  one 
street  overlaps  a  lower  value  from  another  street — and  plans 
for  figuring  lots  at  or  near  obtuse  and  acute  angles.  To  de¬ 
scribe  all  of  these  would  be  too  voluminous  for  the  purposes 
of  this  pamphlet  and  such  a  description  is,  therefore,  omitted. 

BUILDINGS  VALUED  ON  SQUARE  FOOT  BASIS. 

In  appraising  buildings  blank  cards  are  used,  which,  when 
properly  filled  in,  are  so  comprehensive  as  to  cover  com¬ 
plete  descriptions  and  dimensions  of  all  structures.  Build¬ 
ing  experts  describe  and  measure  all  of  the  buildings,  and  com¬ 
pute  the  present  cost  of  new  reproduction  on  the  square-foot- 
of-floor-space  area  basis,  the  cost  factors  being  the  judgment 
of  the  assessor.  From  the  reproductive  cost  of  each  building 
a  depreciation  is  deducted,  which  depreciation  is  based  upon 
the  judgment  of  the  assessor  as  to  the  general  average  obso¬ 
lescence,  from  the  new  cost,  considering  wear  and  tear  and  the 
general  condition  of  each  structure. 


i 

CE 

O 

+ 


I - 

UJ 


oc 

in 


OF  REALTY  VALUATION 


11 


COLLATERAL  BENEFITS  OF  USE  OF  SOMERS 

SYSTEM. 

The  Somers  System  is  of  course  an  innovation.  Old 
methods  may  continue  for  a  time  to  have  their  advocates. 
There  may  be  opposition  from  old-method  experts  who  will  at 
first  find  it  difficult  to  think  in  unit  values  instead  of  specific 
lot  values.  However,  the  Somers  System  ought  to  be  judged 
by  the  results  of  its  application,  rather  than  by  criticism  from 
those  who  do  not  understand  the  system. 

We  believe  that  if  any  city  should  be  valued  by  the 
Somers  System  methods  the  following,  among  other  impor¬ 
tant  results,  would  be  accomplished : 

First — The  property-owners  would,  by  their  study  of 
comparative  values,  be  awakened  to  a  better  knowledge  of 
their  city  and  the  possibilities  of  future  development  and 
increased  use  of  their  property.  The  peculiar  advantages  of 
each  section  for  special  uses  would  lead  to  comprehensive 
development  along  suitable  lines  and  the  replacement  of  old 
buildings  by  modern  structures,  thus  enabling  the  community 
to  use  its  property  to  better  and  more  profitable  advantage. 

Second — If  the  true  value  of  all  city  property  should  be 
ascertained,  and  the  taxes  levied  on  such  values,  the  financial 
requirements  of  the  city  could  be  easily  met ;  and  the  re-distri¬ 
bution  of  the  tax  burden  could  be  made  with  perfect  fairness 
and  justice  to  all  property  owners.  The  substitution  of  a 
scientific  system  of  valuation  for  an  unscientific  custom  of 
guessing  would  increase  the  confidence  of  the  public  in  munici¬ 
pal  administration,  and  make  increases  in  the  tax  rate 
unnecessary. 

Third— The  installation  of  the  Somers  System  throughout 
any  city  would  tend  to  the  standardization  of  real  estate 
values ;  and  would  render  the  making  of  loans  more  easy. 
At  the  same  time,  it  would  increase  the  confidence  of  the  in¬ 
vesting  public  in  real  estate  as  an  investment,  and  would 
create  a  more  general  interest  in  and  knowledge  of  real 
estate  values  and  opportunities. 

Fourth — A  participation  in  the  valuation  of  city  realty  on 
the  part  of  the  official  assessors  would  educate  those  public 
officials  to  an  extent  that  would  enable  them  to  perform  their 
duties  more  efficiently.  The  changes  in  local  conditions  would 
be  more  accurately  kept  track  of  by  the  assessors,  and  such 
changes  could  be  reflected  upon  all  the  property  affected. 


Sample  Somers  System  Unit  Value  Map,  showing  tentatw 

J 


I  ARCH  I 

1  1 

L 

1  1 

1  £1 1 

1800  2000 

2.S00 

2.700 

26 

f « 

LO 

cuthbert.8 

,  1 

UNIP 

JO 

>0 

Q 

FILBERT.  ^ 

o 

o 

o 

z 

■  ! 

1  5| 

ro 

4250  i 

1000  1500 

1  j 

C.500 

5500 

iBRbAD 
I  ?  |5T 


'pTAfflON 


*750  5000  5500 


1600ft 


□ 

□i 


LiJ 

_ I 

o 


GOO 


050 


d 


RAN  STEAD 


D 


PUBLIC 
BUILDINGS 
PENN  SQUARE 


in 

c 


I  I5< 


I  25 


8000 


3000 


3ooo 


CHESTNUT 


FI 

uo 

CO 

7000  9000 

8000  1 0000 

12.500 

13500 

13500 

14500 

£' 

LO 

SANS0M  ui 

o 

o 

CD 

BROAD 

o 

o 

1500 

2.000 

3000 

□ 

1* 

MORAVIAN  1 

lo 

co 

o 

o 

□ 

1  1 

L. 

"1 

r~  i 

3800  4-300 

4-5  00 

5000 

i  m — i 


16000  14500 

i  5  0  < 

17500 

l  6  0 1 

QO 

1  i  | 

1 

[PPL 

CL 

220 

Z 

o  I 
lo 

3500 

25C 

ZD 

o 

U) 

CO 

P' 

N 

G  000 

43  0 

45  0 

A  unit  is  a  front  foot  100  feet  deep  unaffected  by  corner,  a 
feet  the  value  per  front  foot  may  be  found  by  use  of  the  Somen 
are  worth  the  corresponding  percentages  of  the  unit  values : — 


Feet  deep 

10 . 

20 . 

30 . 

40 . 


Percentage  of 
Unit  Value 


25 

41 

54 

64 


Feet  deep 

50 . 

60 . 

70 . 

80 . 


Percentage  o£ 
Unit  Value 


72 

70 

86 

91 


Feet  deep  ~ 

90 . 

100 . 

110 . 

120 . 


Example: — If  a  lot  in  a  street  having  a  unit  value  of  $1,000 
or  $1,210  a  front  foot.  This  figure  does  not  include  any  value  d 


init  values  to  be  discussed  by  the  public  (Philadelphia) 


J 


I  I  5  0  0 


MS  00 


LUDLOW 


r  1  i 

I  000 


J  L 


2000 


r  f 

CUTHBERT2 

§| 

L 

♦ 

FILBERT  2 

?L 

1500 

1 

Is 

2750 

l  0500 

I  1  2.50 

J 

c 

LUDLOW 

io 

^  1 

>  '■  — 

CHESTNUT 


4500 

£*500 


c 

c 


I , 

f- 

o 

oi 


700 


o 

o 

.  |M0f?AVIAN| 

u> 

$ 

|  Moravian 

4 

WALNUT 

*1 

-L 

II . 1 

35  00 

37  5  0  3250 

2500 

l  3  00 

c 

c 


1  f 


m  r 


'  or  pther  influence.  For  lots  of  greater  or  less  depth  than  100 
ipth  curve,  which  shows  that  frontages  of  the  following  depths 


’ercentage  of 
Uni*  Value 

.  95 

.  100 

.  104 

.  107 


Percentage  of 

Feet  deep  Unit  Value  Feet  deep 


Percentage  of 
Unit  Value 


130 

140 

150 

160 


110 

170 . 

.  119 

113 

180 . 

.  120 

115 

190 . 

.  121 

117 

200 . 

1£2 

^90  feet  deep  the  front  foot  value  will  be  121  per  cent,  of  $1,000 
to  a  frontage  on  an  alley  or  any  other  enhancing  influence. 


14 


THE  SOMERS  UNIT  SYSTEM 


Installation  Methods  of  Somers 
Unit  System 

Any  city,  county  or  state  may  secure  the  services  neces¬ 
sary  for  the  installation  of  the  Somers  System  for  assessment 
purposes,  at  reasonable  cost.  The  plans  outlined  below  have 
been  adopted  in  different  cities.  The  Manufacturers’  Appraisal 
Company  is  prepared  to  modify  the  plan  under  which  services 
may  be  furnished  to  meet  the  special  requirements  of  any 
community. 

Plan  No.  1. — We  can  furnish  expert  Somers  System  ac¬ 
countants  and  building  experts  at  a  reasonable  per  diem,  who 
can  explain  the  operation  of  the  Somers  System  and  direct  the 
assessors’  clerks  and  employes  in  the  detail  work  necessary 
to  lot  and  building  computations.  Or  we  can  name  a  lump 
amount  for  our  services  in  a  given  city  upon  investigation  and 
stipulation  as  to  the  nature  and  amount  of  the  services  to  be 
required. 

Plan  No.  2. — We  are  prepared  to  name  a  stated  price  per 
lot  or  per  block  for  applying  the  Somers  System  to  all  or  part 
of  a  city.  Thus  it  is  possible  to  apply  the  system  to  the  most 
important  business  section  of  a  city,  or  to  any  section  desired. 
The  city  can  furnish  the  clerical  assistance  or  we  can  furnish 
the  clerks  necessary,  as  may  be  most  feasible. 

Plan  No.  3. — For  public  investigations  of  land  values,  or 
for  condemnation  or  other  legal  proceedings,  we  are  prepared 
to  furnish  our  own  reM  estate  valuation  experts,  as  well  as 
Somers  System  experts.  We  are  prepared  to  give  court  evi¬ 
dence  as  to  the  comparative  values  of  different  parcels  of 
realty,  based  upon  the  Somers  computation  tables. 

Note. — Where  we  assist  assessors  it  should  be  under¬ 
stood  that  in  no  event  do  our  representatives  participate  in 
the  fixing  of  unit  values.  That  is  properly  a  prerogative  of 
the  assessor. 

Address  inquiries  to 

MANUFACTURERS’  APPRAISAL  COMPANY, 
Caxton  Building,  Cleveland,  Ohio. 


Success  of  The  Somers  System 


The  Somers  Unit  System  of  Realty  Valuation  is  now- 
being  used  in  its  seventh  city.  It  was  used  in  Cleveland  and 
Columbus,  Ohio,  for  the  assessments  of  1910 ;  in  Philadelphia 
in  1910  for  an  investigation  of  assessments  by  councils;  in 
Springfield,  East  St.  Louis  and  Joliet,  Ill.,  for  the  assessments 
of  1911;  and  at  the  time  of  issuing  this  pamphlet  it  is  in 
operation  in  Denver,  Colo.,  for  the  assessment  of  1911.  It  is 
the  only  known  system,  plan  or  method  of  appraising  realty 
that  has  been  standardized  and  used  in  more  than  one  city  or 
taxing  division. 

What  is  said  of  the  Somers  System  after  the  assessment 
has  been  made  by  assessors  and  others,  is  important  as 
expressing  opinion  of  success  or  failure.  We  invite  personal 
investigation  of  any  sort  in  any  city  that  has  used  the  Somers 
System.  The  following  extracts  from  letters,  interviews  and 
newspaper  comment,  show  the  favor  that  the  use  of  this  sys¬ 
tem  meets  and  the  interest  of  those  who  have  taken  occasion 
to  investigate : 


IN  CLEVELAND,  OHIO. 

Mr.  John  A.  Zangerle,  Secretary  of  the  Cleveland  Quad¬ 
rennial  Board  of  Assessors,  who  used  the  Somers  System  for 
the  assessment  of  1911,  wrote  the  following  opinion  under 
date  of  July  8,  1911,  a  year  after  the  completion  of  the  work: 

“The  lapse  of  one  year  since  the  original  Cleveland  assess¬ 
ment  has  proved  the  worth  of  the  Somers  System.  Uniformit)r 
and  regularity  in  assessment  work  will  always. command  pub¬ 
lic  approval  and  enlist  private  support.  Errors  are  reduced 
to  a  minimum;  whim  and  caprice  eliminated.  Taxing  au¬ 
thorities  become  honored  and  not  debased ;  their  work  is 
emulated — not  derided. 

“A  scientific  appraisal  prevents  the  debauchery  of  public 
servants  and  once  adopted  in  any  city  its  permanent  use  will 
be  assured.” 


Mr.  Frederic  C.  Howe,  the  publicist,  who  was  a  member 
of  the  Cleveland  Quadrennial  Board  of  Assessors,  in  a  public 


THE  SOMERS  UNIT  SYSTEM 


16 

address  after  the  completion  of  the  work,  made  the  following 
observations : 

“I  think  that  the  word  ‘scientific’  can  now  be  applied  to 
assessments  of  real  property  for  purposes  of  local  taxation, 
for  science,  as  I  understand  it,  is  a  law  of  causation.  Given 
certain  premises,  certain  results  must  follow.  The  system 
employed  in  Cleveland,  the  Somers  System,  is  a  law  of  causa¬ 
tion  to  results.” 

“The  effect  of  that  is  two-fold.  It  has  a  moral  effect  upon 
the  official,  because  he  works  all  the  time  in  the  open ;  and  in 
addition  the  searchlight  of  publicity  is  on  all  his  acts  after  his 
work  is  completed,  for  it  all  goes  to  the  community  for  exam¬ 
ination.  It  puts  the  citizens  in  the  best  possible  position  to 
complain  if  they  find  they  have  been  overvalued.” 

“It  was  surprising  how  readily  the  whole  community 
learned  to  think  of  unit  values.” 

“The  unit  system  practically  prevents  fraud  or  favoritism 
in  making  values.  No  member  of  the  Board,  and  no  official, 
made  values.  He  knew  nothing  about  lot  lines :  these  lines 
were  not  printed,  they  were  not  before  him.  He  was  looking 
at  a  hypothetical  plot,  not  a  lot  of  land.  If  he  attempted  to 
favor  any  particular  one  by  favoring  a  whole  district  it  threw 
it  all  out  of  joint  and  made  it  difficult,  almost  impossible,  to 
accord  favors  to  an  individual  without  according  them  to  a 
very  large  district  ;  and  in  view  of  the  large  number  of  eyes 
that  were  looking  at  every  district  it  was  practically  impos¬ 
sible  to  grant  any  favors,  such  as  have  been  so  numerous  in 
assessing  real  property  in  the  past.” 


Mr.  F.  A.  Sarstedt,  President  of  the  Cleveland  Board  of 
Review,  the  reviewing  board  for  the  Cleveland  assessment  of 
1910,  under  date  of  July  10,  1911,  writes  the  following: 

“I  was  connected  with  the  taxing  machinery  in  this 
county  in  1900,  when  the  last  appraisement  was  made  and  no 
system  was  used.  I  have  also  worked  on  the  equalization  of 
the  last  appraisement  made  under  the  Somers  System,  and  am 
therefore  familiar  with  the  comparative  results. 

“We  have  in  the  city  of  Cleveland  approximately  145,000 
parcels  of  property,  and  nearly  100,000  buildings,  which, 
according  to  our  laws,  had  to  be  appraised  and  turned  over  in 
seven  months’  time.  Five  men  were  elected  to  do  this  work, 
and  they  used  more  than  500  employes  to  accomplish  the 
results,  many  of  whom  never  had  any  previous  experience  „on 


OF  REALTY  VALUATION 


17 


this  kind  of  work,  and  the  entire’  organization  was  new. 
While  Mr.  Somers  took  general  charge  of  the  work,  he  com¬ 
plained  about  the  inefficiency  of  a  large  number  of  his  asso¬ 
ciates.  Under  the  circumstances,  it  is  only  natural  that 
hundreds  of  errors  of  all  kinds  would  creep  into  the  work  and 
cause  dissatisfaction  and  complaints. 

“We  have  had  in  the  neighborhood  of  12,000  complaints, 
and  it  is  our  judgment  that  60  per  cent  of  them  were  due  to 
clerical  errors. 

“After  reviewing  this  work  for  the  past  eight  months,  I 
am  firmly  convinced  that  the  Somers  plan,  if  carefully  worked 
out  by  competent  men,  will  eliminate  90  per  cent  of  the 
troubles  of  the  assessing  authorities. 

“There,  is  no  question  but  what  it  prevents  partiality 
being  shown  between  neighbors,  because,  after  units  are  estab¬ 
lished,  all  property  must  be  figured  on  the  same  basis  in  a 
given  territory.  No  reduction  nor  addition  can  be  made  with¬ 
out  applying  to  all  property  within  the  block,  and  if  the  large 
majority  in  a  certain  block  is  satisfied,  it  enables  the  assessing 
authorities  to  stand  firmly  on  the  uniform  value  of  the  whole 
block,  notwithstanding  the  fact  that  the  minority  owners 
complain  bitterly. 

“I  do  not  think  that  this  city  will  ever  go  back  to  the  old 
methods  after  having  experienced  the  use  of  the  Somers 
System.” 


City  Solicitor  Newton  D.  Baker,  of  Cleveland,  in  response 
to  an  inquiry  concerning  the  Somers  System,  answered  as 
follows : 

“It  is  the  most  practical  and  just  system  of  real  estate 
assessment  that  I  have  ever  seen.” 


Mr.  R.  M.  Hurd,  President  of  the  Lawyers’  Mortgage 
Company  of  New  York,  a  student  who  has  investigated  land 
valuation  methods  in  many  parts  of  the  country,  and  an  author 
of  authority  on  this  subject,  addressed  the  following  letter  to 
Mr.  John  A.  Zangerle,  Secretary  of  the  Cleveland  Quadren¬ 
nial  Board  of  Assessors,  who  used  the  Somers  System  in  the 
1910  assessment,  under  date  of  March  7,  1911 : 

“I  duly  received  the  Quadrennial  Report  of  the  Board  of 
Assessors  of  the  City  of  Cleveland  and  thank  you  very  much 
for  sending  it  to  me.  I  read  this  over  last  night  and  I  cer¬ 
tainly  think  it  a  model  report  and  one  that  the  Board  should 


18 


THE  SOMERS  UNIT  SYSTEM 


be  proud  of.  I  do  not  believe  that  any  city  has  done  this  work 
as  scientifically  and  effectively  as  Cleveland.” 

IN  SPRINGFIELD,  ILL. 

Assessor  Burke  Vancil,  of  Springfield,  Ill.,  under  date  of 
July  6,  1911,  after  the  completion  of  the  assessment  of  1911, 
wrote  the  following: 

“Now  that  we  are  through  with  the  work  of  making  our 
quadrennial  assessment  of  real  estate  a  brief  retrospect  may 
be  of  interest  to  you.  You  probably  remember  that  I  was  not 
inclined  to  adopt  the  Somers  System  here  until  I  had  made 
a  careful  investigation  of  results  in  other  cities  and  demon¬ 
strations  of  the  system  were  had  on  several  business  and  resi¬ 
dence  blocks  of  our  city.  We  have  used  the  system  through¬ 
out  the  entire  city  and  I  am  convinced  that  this  or  a  similar 
system  is  the  only  successful  way  to  determine  the  value  of 
city  lots  and  buildings  for  taxation  purposes. 

“Now  that  I  have  used  the  system  and  seen  its  practical 
application  I  unhesitatingly  say  that  I  have  no  regrets  for 
having  decided  to  adopt  it  for  Springfield.  With  it  we  have 
secured  a  remarkable  degree  of  accuracy,  almost  absolute 
uniformity  and  the  fullest  publicity. 

“I  am  impressed  with  the  simplicity  of  the  system  and 
observe  that  after  all  it  is  just  ordinary  common  sense  sys¬ 
tematically  applied. 

“It  has  been  well  received  here  and  with  the  exception 
of  a  few  complaints  from  those  who  have  heretofore  escaped 
their  just  share  of  taxes,  it  has  met  with  the  approval  of  the 
entire  community.  If  you  see  fit  to  refer  to  me  I  shall  be  glad 
to  speak  from  the  standpoint  of  one  who  has  used  the  system.” 

IN  EAST  ST.  LOUIS,  ILL. 

Assessor  L.  S.  McWilliams,  of  East  St.  Louis,  Ill.,  wrote 
the  following  letter  at  the  conclusion  of  his  work  for  1911 : 

“As  we  have  just  completed  the  Quadrennial  Assessment 
of  all  real  property  and  as  this  was  the  first  city  in:  the  state 
of  Illinois  to  adopt  the  Somers  System,  it  affords  me  great 
pleasure  to  state  that  with  very  few  exceptions  this  assess¬ 
ment  is  entirely  satisfactory.  Almost  universally  the  tax¬ 
payers  of  this  community  feel  that  this  plan  has  afforded  our 
city  the  most  just  and  equitable  assessment  that  was  ever 
attempted  in  this  municipality  and  I  am  eager  to  assure  you 
that  I  know  of  no  honest  objection  to  this  plan  of  work,  and, 


OF  REALTY  VALUATION 


19 


I  further  assure  you  that  the  high  standard  of  efficiency  made 
possible  through  the  use  of  the  Somers  System  will  be  a  perr 
manent  benefit  in  the  way  of  all  future  public  service  in  the 
management  of  this  city.” 

IN  JOLIET,  ILLINOIS. 

Mr.  W.  O.  Hodgdon,  Industrial  Agent  for  the  City  of 
Joliet,  Iffi,  where  the  Somers  System  was  used  in  the  assess¬ 
ment  of  1911,  writes  as  follows  under  date  of  July  11,  1911 : 

“The  Somers  Unit  System  was  used  in  Joliet  this  spring 
for  the  purpose  of  ascertaining  taxable  values.  The  results 
have  been  received  with  marked  favor  by  Assessor  Elmer  S. 
Grundy,  and  by  others  who  have  a  practical  knowledge  of 
the  situation.  Numerous  public  meetings  were  held  to  study 
the  workings  of  the  system.  Following  this  the  people  au¬ 
thorized  an  appropriation  to  install  the  Somers  System.  The 
result  of  its  application  to  the  valuation  of  land  and  buildings 
for  taxation  purposes  has  been  the  correction  of  many  in¬ 
equalities  due  in  the  past  to  the  lack  of  a  systematic  assess¬ 
ment  rule.” 

IN  PHILADELPHIA,  PA. 

In  an  official  report  to  councils  under  date  of  November 
30,  1910,  Messrs.  John  Adams,  Win.  F.  Deakyne  and  James 
Johnston,  experts  chosen  for  their  very  wide  knowledge  of 
Philadelphia  realty  values,  wrote  the  following: 

“That  in:  compliance  with  your  instructions  and  in  fur¬ 
therance  of  the  purposes  of  our  appointment,  we  have 
continuously,  from  that  time,  been  actively  and  diligently 
employed,  separately  and  in  co-operation  with  the  Manufac¬ 
turers’  Appraisal  Company,  in  placing  values  upon  the  land 
and  the  improvements  thereon  erected,  embracing  individual 
properties  in  the  Fifth,  Sixth,  Seventh,  Eighth,  Ninth  and 
Tenth  Wards.  After  careful  consideration  and  independent 
investigation  by  ourselves  of  land  and  building  values,  we  are 
of  the  opinion  that  the  valuations  made  by  the  representatives 
i  of  the  Manufacturers’  Appraisal  Company  and  ourselves  upon 

the  properties  passed  upon  (land  and  improvements  thereon 
erected),  are  as  nearly  correct  at  the  time  of  our  fixing  such 
valuations  as  it  is  humanly  possible  to  have  them. 

A  “We  further  desire  to  express  our  approval  of  the  com¬ 

pany’s  method  of  measuring  buildings  and  carefully  fixing  a 
present  market  value  thereon,  separate  and  apart  from  the 
land  value.  Its  calculations  of  land  values  by  the  Somers 
System  is  a  decided  improvement  upon,  and  much  superior  to 
the  method  of  assessment  at  present  in  use.  By  the  com- 


20 


THE  SOMERS  UNIT  SYSTEM 


pany’s  method  every  foot  of  ground  of  each  and  every  lot  is 
accounted  for  and  given  its  accurate  value.  Such  valuations 
of  land  and  improvements  produce  greater  uniformity  and 
equality.” 


Mayor  Reyburn,  of  Philadelphia,  in  an  interview  in  the 
Philadelphia  Public  Ledger,  July  8,  1911,  in  an  extended  inter¬ 
view  on  the  Somers  System,  which  the  councils  of  tjiat  city 
had  attempted  to  use  in  an  assessment  investigation  the  year 
before,  makes  these  observations : 

“Irrespective  of  the  intrinsic  merits  of  the  Somers  System 
for  assessing  realty  as  a  proprietary  plan,  it  has  basic  princi¬ 
ples  for  its  foundation  that  we  could  well  carry  out. 

“The  demonstration  made  by  the  Somers  people  in 
making  assessments  of  realty  in  central  wards  and  German¬ 
town,  while  possibly  not  conclusive,  was  nevertheless  illum¬ 
inating  to  demonstrate  its  worth.  And  that  demonstration 
was  worth  the  price  charged  by  the  company  for  its  work.” 

Note. — The  Philadelphia  work  of  this  company  was  done 
for  a  Joint  Committee  of  Councils  authorized  to  investigate 
the  assessments  in  that  city.  The  work  was  over  half  com¬ 
pleted  when  it  was  stopped  by  the  courts  on  the  ground  that 
councils  had  not  the  legal  power  to  make  such  an  investiga¬ 
tion.  This  company  made  a  partial  report  of  findings,  and  it 
is  to  this  partial  report  and  general  talk  in  Philadelphia  to 
which  Mayor  Reyburn  evidently  refers.  At  the  time  the  con¬ 
tract  was  made  by  the  Joint  Committee  with  the  Manufac¬ 
turers’  Appraisal  Company,  Mayor  Reyburn,  while  consenting 
to  it,  expressed  some  doubts  as  to  the  advisability  of  the  con¬ 
templated  step ;  therefore  his  endorsement  of  the  effect  of 
the  partial  work  in  Philadelphia  is  specially  significant. 


Edward  W.  Patton,  Chairman  of  the  Joint  Committee  of 
Philadelphia  Councils  to  investigate  the  taxable  value  of  real 
estate,  writes  under  date  of  July  10,  1911: 

“I  consider  the  Somers  System  of  Realty  Valuation  the 
most  excellent  method  yet  devised  for  arriving  at  the  actual 
market  value  of  land  and  buildings,  and  it  reaches  more  ac¬ 
curate  results  than  any  other  method  with  which  I  am 
acquainted.  To  the  system  I  wish  to  give  my  most  hearty 
recommendation. 

“This  system  received  but  a  partial  trial  in  Philadelphia 
when  it  was  held  that  the  Manufacturers’  Appraisal  Company 
had  been  employed  by  the  wrong  governmental  body,  and  for 


21 


OF  REALTY  VALUATION 

that  reason  the  work  in  Philadelphia  was  not  completed.  The 
opinion  of  the  court  in  this  case  commended  the  system, 
and  rested  its  decision  entirely  upon  the  question  of  division 
of  authority  between  Councils  and  the  Board  of  Revision  of 
Taxes. 

“While  the  above  action  of  the  court  halted  the  complete 
application  of  the  Somers  System,  yet  so  much  of  the  work 
as  was  completed  showed  marked  improvement  over  the  then 
existing*  assessments,  and  subsequently  the  assessors  profited 
by  the  work  of  the  Somers  System,  radically  modifying  many 
of  their  previous  valuations.” 


Mr.  Peter  E.  Costello,  member  of  the  Joint  Councils  Com¬ 
mittee  of  Philadelphia,  under  date  of  July  10,  1911,  writes  as 
follows : 

“The  Somers  System  is,  in  my  opinion,  the  most  scien¬ 
tific  and  accurate  method  of  valuing  land  and  buildings  ever 
devised.  This  fact  is  clearly  proved  by  the  valuations  in  your 
report  to  the  Councils  Special  Committee. 

“The  scientific  and  systematic  methods  used  in  the  ap¬ 
praisal  of  real  estate  by  the  Somers  System  are  as  far  in 
advance  of  the  present  guessing  methods  of  nearly  all  assess¬ 
ing  departments  as  our  present  methods  of  transportation  are 
an  improvement  over  those  of  a  century  ago. 

“If  the  Somers  System  was  universally  adopted,  it  would 
end  all  unfairness  in  taxation,  would  result  in  the  wealthy 
owner  of  central  properties  bearing  his  burden  of  taxation 
and  would  abolish  the  over-taxation  of  the  small  home  owner.” 


Mr.  William  F.  Deakyne,  one  of  the  experts  employed  by 
the  Joint  Councils  Committee  for  the  investigation  of  Phila¬ 
delphia  assessments  in  1910,  and  a  real  estate  broker  of  forty 
years,  writes  the  following  under  date  of  July  10,  1911: 

“My  first  impression  of  the  Somers  Unit  System  of  Realty 
Valuation  was  that  it  was  an  impractical  scheme  which  would 
never  work  in  Philadelphia.  When  I  formed  this  opinion,  I 
knew  very  little  about  the  system,  and  had  never  had  its 
merits  demonstrated. 

“During  the  many  years  I  have  been  engaged  in  the  real 
estate  business  as  an  active  broker,  I  have  bought  and  sold 
for  my  own  account  and  for  clients  many  million  dollars  worth 
of  real  estate.  I  always  performed  this  work  in  the  way  usual 
with  real  estate  brokers ;  that  is,  by  considering  the  selling 
prices,  rentals,  and  such  other  information  as  could  be  ob- 


22 


THE  SOMERS  UNIT  SYSTEM 


tained  of  properties  near  the  one  in  question,  and  comparing 
sizes  of  lots,  etc.,  and  also  taking  into  consideration  what  could 
be  done  with  the  property  in  question  if  improved. 

“It  never  occurred  to  me  that  any  uniform  and  standard 
rule  could  be  adopted  for  making  such  comparisons.  I  realize 
from  experience  the  difficulty  of  comparing  lots  of  different 
sizes  and  different  shapes,  and  buildings  of  different  type  of 
construction.  If  I  had  been  asked  if  such  a  rule  were  possible 
I  believe  that  my  answer  would  have  been  in  the  negative. 

“It  is,  therefore,  not  strange  that  I  at  first  regarded  the 
Somers  System  as  a  visionary  scheme  which  would  not  stand 
a  test,  but,  during  the  several  months  when  I  acted  as  real 
estate  expert  for  a  Special  Joint  Committee  of  the  City 
Councils  of  Philadelphia,  I  kept  close  watch  upon  the  work 
done  in  the  application  of  the  Somers  System  by  the  Manu¬ 
facturers’-  Appraisal  Company,  and  came  to  the  conclusion 
that  the  scheme  which  I  had  at  first  considered  visionary  was 
a  most  practical  method  of  uniformly  assessing  property. 

“There  is  no  question  in  my  mind  that  the  work  done  by 
the  Manufacturers’  Appraisal  Company  in  Philadelphia  is  of 
inestimable  value  to  the  city,  as  it  has  taught  many  thousands 
of  citizens  that  equitable  taxation  can  only  be  obtained  through 
equitable  assessments.” 


Mr.  Haines  D.  Albright,  Secretary  of  the  Tax  Reform 
Association  of  Pennsylvania,  under  date  of  July  11, 1911,  writes 
the  following: 

“The  partial  investigation  of  the  taxable  value  of  Phila¬ 
delphia  real  estate  made  by  your  company  disclosed  many 
instances  of  gross  inequality,  and  thus  compelled  a  substantial 
advance  towards  a  just  and  equal  distribution  of  the  tax 
burden. 

“We  studied  and  observed  in  detail  the  methods  employed 
by  you  during  your  work  in  Philadelphia,  and  are  convinced 
that  they  include  every  device  and  every  safeguard  against 
unfairness  known  to  the  science  of  realty  valuation. 

“Your  method  of  discovering  the  true  value  of  various 
streets,  by  inviting  and  encouraging  all  persons  who  are  ac¬ 
quainted  with  the  neighborhood  to  participate  in  public  dis¬ 
cussions,  and  to  assist  in  appraising  the  fairness  of  known  sale 
prices,  worked  admirably.  The  public  discussions  were  par¬ 
ticipated  in  by  the  very  people  who  knew  the  facts  at  first 
hand,  and  they  unquestionably  resulted  in  bringing  to  the 


OF  REALTY  VALUATION 


23 


knowledge  and  notice  of  our  tax  assessment  officials  a  great 
mass  of,  to  them,  very  instructive  information. 

“I  trust  that  Philadelphia  will  hereafter  find  a  way  to  have 
the  whole  of  our  assessments  made  in  accordance  with  the 
admirable  system  which  your  company  employs.” 

IN  COLUMBUS,  OHIO. 

The  Quadrennial  Board  of  Assessors  of  Columbus,  Ohio, 
>  installed  and  .  used  the  Somers  System  for  the  assessment  of 

1910.  The  contract  for  this  work  with  this  company,  among 
other  things,  provided  that  there  should  be  no  payment  for 
services  until  the  work  had  been  completed.  When  the  work 
was  nearly  finished,  so  well  satisfied  were  the  members  of  this 
Board  with  the  Somers  System,  that  they  made  a  supple¬ 
mentary  contract  for  the  assessment  for  territory  that  had 
been  annexed  to  the  city  after  the  first  contract  was  entered 
into.  At  the  conclusion  of  all  the  work  under  both  contracts 
the  Board  unanimously  recommended  the  payment  of  the 
bill  for  the  use  of  the  Somers  System  and  for  the  services  of 
the  experts  of  the  Manufacturers’  Appraisal  Company.  This 
action  necessarily  carried  with  it  commendation  for  the  work 
performed  under  these  two  contracts. 

The  auditor  of  Franklin  county,  in  which  is  located  the 
City  of  Columbus,  after  this  action,  and,  as  declared  by  him 
in  private  conversations,  for  political  reasons,  withheld  pay¬ 
ment,  thus  compelling  this  company  to  sue  for  its  account. 
The  hearing  resulted  in  a  judgment  for  the  full  amount  with 
interest  and  costs,  in  favor  of  the  Manufacturers’  Appraisal 
Company;  to  the  effect  that  the  auditor  had  no  legal  right  to 
withhold  the  money  due  on  the  contract. 

At  the  hearing  of  this  suit  members  Hertenstein  and  Clark 
of  the  Board  of  Assessors  were  called  upon  to  testify.  Their 
sworn  evidence  was  to  the  effect  that  the  use  of  the  Somers 
c  System  had  resulted  in  the  first  equitable  assessment  of  land 

and  buildings  that  had  ever  been  made  in  Columbus ;  they 
gave  many  strong  reasons  for  satisfaction  with  the  work  of 
this  company  in  installing  and  using  the  Somers  System  in 
the  assessment  work.  The  contention  of  the  auditor  that  the 
use  of  the  Somers  System  precluded  the  valuation  of  the 
property  ‘“upon  view,”  as  required  by  law,  the  assessors  de¬ 
clared  to  be  without  justification  in  fact.  Not  only  was  all 
property  viewed  by  the  assessors,  but  they  declared  that,  the 


24 


THE  SOMERS  UNIT  SYSTEM 


Somers  System  afforded  a  most  effective  basis  for  comparison 
of  streets  and  lots,  impossible  without  the  use  of  a  scientific 
system. 

The  schedule  of  building  valuations  and  depreciations  used 
by  the  Board  of  Assessors  is  now  in  use  by  Columbus  insur¬ 
ance  adjusters  for  the  settlement  of  fire  losses. 


INVESTIGATION  IN  BOSTON. 

In  an  editorial  in  its  issue  of  June  3,  1911,  the  Boston 
Common  has  the  following: 

“A  number  of  schemes  have  been  devised  for  systematiz¬ 
ing  the  computation  of  tax  assessments  and  the  claims  for 
them  vary  widely.  All  that  the  promoters  of  the  Somers  plan 
assert  for  it,  is  that  if  its  unit  starting  points  are  selected 
fairly  and  its  tables  reckoned  with  clerical  accuracy,  it  will 
give  a  scientifically  proportioned  distribution  of  the  tax  bur¬ 
den,  needing  readjustment '  in  only  a  few  instances  where 
exceptional  factors  operate.  They  make,  indeed,  one  further 
claim — that  the  public  discussion  incidental  to  the  selection 
of  the  unit  starting  points,  if  not  inseparable  from  it,  tends  to 
throw  the  entire  work  of  assessing  into  the  open,  thus  bring¬ 
ing  into  play  the  powerful  corrective  of  publicity. 

“We  hold  no  brief  for  the  Somers  plan  but  deem  it 
worthy  of  explanation  and  examination.  The  need  of 
improved  assessing  is  notorious  in  Boston.  Not  only  is  the 
disproportion  great  as  between  assessments  of  business  prop¬ 
erties  of  approximately  equal  commercial  value,  showing 
either  carelessness  or  'puli’  or  both ;  but  the  worse  evil  exists 
of  a  heavier  load  upon  the  small  house  owner  than  upon  the 
trader  or  speculator.”  * 


“EXTRAORDINARILY  GOOD.” 

The  Ohio  State  Tax  Commission  in  its  final  action  July 
11,  1911,  on  the  assessment  of  Columbus,  Ohio,  made  no 
changes  in  the  figures  returned.  The  Columbus  State  Journal 
says : 

“Columbus  is  one  of  the  few  cities  in  the  state  which  has 
not  had  the  total  of  its  real  estate  duplicate  changed  when  it 
reached  the  Tax  Commission.  The  Commissioners  say  the 
labors  of  the  Columbus  Board  of  Review  and  Quadrennial 
Appraisers  was  extraordinarily  good.” 

Columbus  was  assessed  by  the  Somers  System  methods. 


STATE 'ST. 


ADAMS  ST 

UN  IT  ♦  5.000 


14*  .4 

© 

o 

© 

$  1.702,355 

N 

$  280 .  189 

<D 

-u 

3 

*  315,  213 

© 

4* 

t~ 

4- 

♦  665,448 

© 

© 

© 

8  700,473 

© 

o 

T 

8  560,378 

b 

n 

4  5 07,400 

© 

® 


*1,00! , 6-41 


© 

8315,330 

4 

© 

4  2  IS,  135 

♦ 

•> 

© 

#  50! ,  9  56 

#o 

® 

8  |66. 804 

*5 

© 

4  3  <?3,  335 

* 

UNIT  #6,000 

JACKSON  BOUL 


•  14, 1 84- 


Distribution  of  value  by  lots  on  the  basis  of  the  unit 
values  indicated  on  each  of  the  four  sides  of  the  block.  This 
block  is  located  in  Chicago,  Ill.  (See  inside  front  cover  for 
distribution  of  value  by  area.) 


WABASH  AVE. 


Manufacturers’  Appraisal  Company 


Has  been  organized  for  twelve  years.  Its  business  extends 
throughout  the  United  States  and  Canada.  Its  four  depart¬ 
ments,  and  the  services  offered  by  each  department,  are  as 
follows : 

Tax  Valuation  Department 

Appraisals  of  Land  and  Buildings  for 
equalizing  tax  assessments  made  by  the  use  of 
the  Somers  Unit  System  of  Realty  Valuation,  for 
Cities  or  States,  or  for  Investigating  Com¬ 
mittees;  City  Surveys  and  Plats  furnished. 

Industrial  Department 

Expert  valuations  of  Factories  of  every 
description,  Public  Service  Plants,  Railways, 
Public  Buildings,  and  other  Physical  Property; 
such  appraisals  being  used  for  distribution  of 
insurance,  proof  of  fire  losses,  mergers,  audits, 
etc. 

Insurance  Reporting  Department 

Expert  legal  advice  on  all  questions  con¬ 
nected  with  fire,  liability,  boiler  and  other  insur¬ 
ance;  reports  on  insurance  companies,  prepara¬ 
tion  of  rider  forms,  and  proof  of  loss  after  a  fire. 

Home  and  Club  Inventory  Department 

Valuations  of  Home  and  Club  Furnishings 
of  every  description — useful  for  fire  and  burglary 
insurance  purposes — or  just  to  know  what  your 
home  contains. 


Manufacturers'  Appraisal  Company 

Walter  W.  Pollock  ...  President  and  General  Manager 
W.  A.  Somers  .....  Land  Valuation  Actuary 

Charles  C.  Strawbridge  -----  Vice-President 

Arthur  H.  Guild  ------  Vice-President 

E.  W.  Doty  ....  Manager  Tax  Valuation  Department 

John  West  .....  Secretary  and  Treasurer 


CLEVELAND  (Executive  Offices):  Caxton  Building 
PHILADELPHIA:  CHICAGO: 

1072  Drexel  Building  Tribune  Building 

ST.  LOUIS:  NEW  YORK: 

Merchants- Laclede  Building  50  Pine  Street 

INDIANAPOLIS:  American  Central  Life  Building 


